Loading...
SR-417-003-01 (9) F:\PCD\Share\Council Reports 2000\prefwexp.doc Santa Monica, California Council Meeting: October 10, 2000 To: Mayor and City Council From: City Staff Subject: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Expanding Preferential Parking Zone W and Amending City Council Resolution 9344 CCS Introduction This report recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution expanding Preferential th Parking Zone W to include 28 Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard thth and to include Pearl Street between 27 Street and 29 Street and amending City Council Resolution 9344 CCS. This action requires an increase in the revenue projection for account 01415.400290 by $2,700. Background th The City of Santa Monica implemented parking regulations on the two blocks of 28 Street between Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards and on the two blocks of Pearl Street thth between 27 and 29 Streets when installation of traffic circles reduced the amount of thth parking on 28 Street. The resulting regulations on 28 Street restrict parking from 8am-9pm daily, and the parking regulations on Pearl Street restrict parking for more than two hours from 9am-6pm Monday-Friday. When the City notified residents that the th traffic circles would be removed, the residents of 28 Street were advised to submit 1 additional signatures if they would like to keep preferential parking regulations permanently. th The City has received signatures from 62% of the residents of 28 Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard explicitly stating that they would like the City to th permanently adopt preferential parking regulations. The residents of 28 Street between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street did not submit enough additional signatures for the City to consider extending parking regulations permanently on that block. The thth residents of Pearl Street between 27 Street and 29 Street had previously submitted enough signatures to continue parking regulations permanently as preferential parking. The majority of the neighbors agree that vehicle parking by non-residents regularly interferes with the ability of residents to park near their homes. Staff recommends that th the City Council expand Zone W, which already includes 29 Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard and prohibits parking ?for more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.? Staff th recommends that these same regulations apply to Pearl Street between 27 Street and thth 29 Street. On 28 Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard, where residents are affected by parking demand from adjacent uses on Ocean Park Boulevard, staff recommends ?No Parking, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except by permit.? These recommendations consolidate regulations in the area and introduce consistency on the hours and days of regulations. 2 Discussion It was not possible to conduct the type of parking study normally completed as part of the preferential parking establishment process. The temporary parking restrictions have been in effect for over a year and no data is available for parking occupancies prior to the regulations. The street parking spaces appear adequately utilized to continue parking regulations on a permanent basis. The proposed regulations on Pearl Street are consistent with adjacent regulations in Zone W; they have been in place for several years, and no residents have objected to th them. Although consistency with adjacent regulations is a goal, regulations on 28 Street have been different from those on Pearl Street since they were implemented as th a result of different neighborhood conditions. First, residents of 28 Street tend to occupy more of the parking spaces on their street than residents of Pearl Street do. th The residences on 28 Street are mostly multi-family with a few single-family residences with street parking. Patrons of commercial uses along Ocean Park Boulevard, including a County court facility, professional offices, retail stores and a restaurant frequently park for two hours or less, and would be unaffected by regulations allowing two-hour parking. These short-term visitors do not appear willing to walk the th distance from Pearl Street or 29 Street to find free parking. The 2700 and 2800 blocks of Pearl Street are more removed from Ocean Park Boulevard yet are still affected by spillover parking. When the high demand for residential parking is compounded by the high demand for business parking, the situation becomes extremely difficult for the th residents of 28 and Pearl Streets. 3 Comments from Businesses and Residents Staff invited residents and businesses in the affected area to a meeting to discuss the proposed regulations on August 7, 2000. Although businesses in the area were notified of the proposed preferential parking regulations, City staff did not receive any comments from neighborhood businesses. Staff did not receive any comments from residents about the proposed regulations on Pearl Street but did receive expressions of th concern regarding the regulations proposed for 28 Street. th Regulations on 28 Street currently limit parking to residents between 9am and 9pm, seven days a week. Some residents would like to keep these regulations. They argue th that vehicles destined for the restaurant at the corner of 28 Street and Ocean Park Boulevard will continue to limit parking into the evening hours and on weekends if the regulations are relaxed. Other residents want to limit regulations to weekday business hours. They find evening and weekend regulations inconvenient and unnecessary, since most of the businesses are closed on the weekends and in the evenings. Although neighbors disagree about which regulations would be optimal, most support continuation of some regulations. Some residents were concerned about the way that signatures for preferential parking were collected and counted. Because regulations were already in place, and installed as part of a residential traffic management project which was also the subject of community input, staff interpreted the petition requirement so that responses to a 4 survey on the traffic management project counted toward the minimum petition requirement. This decision was made in an effort to streamline the process for a neighborhood that had been subject to repeated petition drives, polls and community meetings. The preferential parking petition had 145 signatures, including signatures supporting a change in hours, at the time of the August 7 neighborhood meeting. This represents signatures from 74% of the units on the block. Exclusive of signatures favoring a change in regulations, residents have submitted 122 signatures representing 62% of the units on the block. The ordinance requires 67% support prior to the initiation of a study. Neighbors in favor of preferential parking are attempting to collect the 9 additional signatures needed to have two-thirds of the residential units represented, without counting any of those who supported a change only, before the Council meeting. Staff is recommending that Council implement the preferential parking whether or not the additional signatures are collected because the record indicates that most residents want preferential parking on the street. The petition requirement is a threshold for initiation of a study, and no study was required for this zone. Since parking regulations th went into effect on 28 Street, residents living in 19 of 196 units have expressed that they do not want any parking regulations. Budget/Fiscal Impact Initially, it is estimated that approximately 180 permits will be purchased by area residents in the proposed zone. This will generate approximately $2,700 annually in 5 additional revenue in FY 00/01 at account 01415.400290. The budget should be amended to reflect this additional revenue. City crews will install the new preferential parking signs. CEQA Analysis The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 19, Section 15301 ( c ) which was recently amended to define Class 1 exempt projects in the following way: "Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving little or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency?s determination. . ." This exemption lists as an example of "existing facilities:" "( c ) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities." Preferential parking zones involve only the issuance of permits for the use of an existing public street and include negligible or no expansion of this existing use. Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the attached Resolution expanding Preferential Parking Zone W to include th Pearl Street and 28 Street, and Amending Resolution 9344 CCS (Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Re-Establishing Various Preferential Parking Zones) by replacing Exhibit A. 2. Approve the revenue budget adjustment outlined in this report. 6 Attachments: A Resolution Establishing Preferential Parking Exhibit A - Preferential Parking Zones B Vicinity Map Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager Beth Rolandson, Transportation Planning Assistant 7